|
|
12月28日 Quote Islam vs. Free Speech Posted 12/28/2007 ET
Under assault by Muslims and multiculturalists, free speech and freedom of the press are dead in Britain. The same sorts of people who killed them in Britain are killing them in Canada. They and their allies are using the British and Canadian courts and tribunals to bury our First Amendment rights in America. Muslims -- individually and in pressure groups -- are using British libel laws and Canadian “human rights” laws to limit what is said about Islam, terrorists and the people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are funding groups such as al-Queda. The cases of Rachel Ehrenfeld and Mark Steyn prove the point. Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar and author of the book, “Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed, and How to Stop it.” In that book, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz -- a Saudi who is former head of the Saudi National Commercial Bank -- and some of his family are described as having funded terrorism directly and indirectly. Ehrenfeld is American, her book was written and published in America and she has no business or other ties to Britain. Under American law, the Brit courts would have no jurisdiction over her. But about two-dozen copies of her book were sold there through the internet. Bin Mahfouz sued her for libel in the Brit courts where the burden of proof is the opposite of what it is in US courts: the author has to prove that what is written is true, rather than the supposedly defamed person proving it is false. Think about that for a moment. Under the US Constitution political writing -- free speech -- is almost unlimited. To gain a libel judgment a politician -- or someone suspected of terrorist ties -- would have to prove that the story or book was false. If that person were a public figure such as Mahfouz, in order to get a libel judgment he’d not only have to prove that what was written was false, he’d also have to prove it was published maliciously. Those American laws and standards of proof protect political speech. The First Amendment is intended to protect political speech that people find objectionable. In the landmark 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court overturned an Ohio statute which would have outlawed hate speech by the Ku Klux Klan. That’s why Mahfouz sued in Britain, not here. Ehrenfeld refused to fight the case, saying the Brit courts have no jurisdiction over her. Mahfouz got a default judgment against her for ₤10,000 (for himself, and in equal amounts for his sons). The judgment also requires that there be no further “defamatory” statements published in England and Wales. In a letter published in the Spectator on November 21, bin Mahfouz’s lawyers gloated over their victory against Ehrenfeld: “Rather than check her facts, defend her statements in open court, or acknowledge her mistakes, Ehrenfeld hides behind a claim to free speech. Thank goodness, the legal lights remain on in Britain to expose such harmful journalism.” “Harmful journalism” is what tyrants and despots call free speech, especially political speech that condemns their affronts to freedom. The “legal lights” Mahfouz’s lawyers see is the bonfire they made of the Magna Carta. Thanks to Mahfouz and his ilk, the light of free speech is extinguished in Britain. Consider the fate of the book, “Alms for Jihad.” In 2006 Cambridge University press published “Alms for Jihad.” It’s a highly detailed and apparently well-researched book that documents Saudi funding of terrorist groups (as well as other funding and the network of Islamic “charities” that contribute to terrorism). “Alms for Jihad” -- like Ehrenfeld’s book -- documents bin Mahfouz’s funding ties to terrorism, including to Usama bin Laden. But “Alms”-- in settlement of a libel suit by bin Mahfouz in the Brit courts -- was withdrawn from stores and libraries and unsold copies destroyed. The Saudi book burners won. Mahfouz’s case against Ehrenfeld has already done enormous harm in the US. Ehrenfeld told me she’s unable to get book publishers to contract for another book. She said all of the major US publishing houses have turned down a book on the Muslim Brotherhood -- thought to have substantial terrorist ties -- and the Saudis’ involvement in funding it. If what Ehrenfeld writes about the Brotherhood offends Mahfouz or someone else whose ties to terrorism ought to be exposed, sales could be banned not only in Britain but in the entire European Union and the publisher -- and the author -- made liable for damages. Mahfouz -- using British courts that have no jurisdiction over American authors -- has apparently precluded Ehrenfeld from writing another book. Steyn’s case is another instance of Muslims trying to silence “harmful journalism.” Mark Steyn’s superb book, “America Alone”, makes two important points: first, that the Muslim baby boom around the world will likely result in Christian nations becoming Muslim by weight of demographics; and second that Islam is a political system, not just a religion: So it’s not merely that there’s a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project and, in fact, an imperial project in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever’s your bag violence-wise can almost certainly be justified. Steyn’s stance -- written by him and paralleled by other writers in the Canadian magazine, “Macleans” -- is the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission brought by three Muslim law students in Canada, with the apparent support of the Canadian Islamic Conference. That group is similar to the CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a multiculti kangaroo court. The complaint against Macleans will be adjudicated next year, and findings entered against the magazine. (Steyn told me that the CHRC has granted 100% of the petitions brought to it so far.) What then? Fines and other sanctions will be entered against Macleans along with probable injunctions against further “harmful journalism” that offends Muslims. A case may be brought against Steyn himself later. Which means that he could be subjected to fines or other penalties in Canada for exercising his First Amendment rights in the US. And -- because American publishers look to Canada for about 10% of their sales -- Steyn may, like Ehrenfeld, find publishers unwilling to publish his work. What has happened to Ehrenfeld and may happen to Steyn is in contravention of their First Amendment rights. No American court would or could do that. No foreign court or commission should be able to. US courts, and each of us who believes in free speech, must stand with both authors. US courts should make it clear that foreign libel judgments or “human rights” decisions that conflict with our First Amendment cannot be enforced. Each and every presidential candidate should speak -- loudly and clearly -- against this encroachment of foreign law on the First Amendment. Anyone who doesn’t stand forthrightly against these foreign infringements on Americans’ Constitutional rights should receive neither our confidence nor our votes. What Muslims such as Mahfouz and those complaining against Steyn are doing to destroy free speech overseas has been commenced here by groups such as CAIR. A few weeks ago, CAIR announced its media guide, which is purportedly corrects “misperceptions” about Islam and “…educate(s) the media and disabuse(s) journalists of misinformation.” But the other aspect -- which I and others suspect -- is that it’s not so much a guide as a set of rules against “harmful journalism.” And those who write about terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Islam will be accused of intolerance and racism should they violate them. We don’t yet know what the CAIR guide says. I requested a copy of it from CAIR by e-mail, as they specified. I have neither received a copy nor received any response. I suspect CAIR wants to hide it from people who would scrutinize it. Having to operate under our Constitution, they will take a more indirect path than Mahfouz and the Canadian law students to preclude what they believe is “harmful journalism.”
Quote Man-Made Global Warming: 10 Questions Posted 12/20/2007 ET
The subject of man-made global warming is almost impossible to discuss without a descent into virulent name-calling (especially on the Internet, where anonymity breeds a special kind of vicious reaction to almost any social or political question), but I’ll try anyway. I consider myself to be relatively well-read on the matter, and I’ve still come down on the skeptical side, because there are aspects of the issue that don’t make a lot of sense to me. Though I confess to have written none-too-reverentially on the subject, I want to try to put all that aside and ask ten serious questions to which I have been unable to find definitive answers: 1. What is the perfect temperature? If we are to embark on a lifestyle-altering quest to lower the temperature (or at least minimize its rise), what is our goal? I don’t ask this flippantly. Can we demonstrate that one setting on the global thermostat is preferable over another? If so, what is it, and how do we get there? And, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we ever have to “heat things up” again if it drops below that point? 2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth? At any one time there are temperature extremes all over the planet. How do we come up with an average, and how do those variations fit in with our desire to slow global warming? 3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend? Again, I don’t ask this in a judgmental way. There is no argument that warming cycles (or cooling, for that matter) have been a part of earth’s history. Why are we so sure this one is different? 4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent? I’m always troubled by arguments that begin, “Everybody agrees...” or “Everyone knows...” In fact, there is a good deal of dissent in the scientific world about the theory of man-made global warming. A large (and growing) segment of those who study such things are questioning some of the basic premises of the theory. Why should there be anything wrong with that? Again, this is a big deal, and we should have the best information and opinion from the best minds. 5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming? Predictions of 20-foot rises in ocean levels have given way to talk of a few inches over time. In many cases, those predictions are less than the rises of the past few centuries. Whatever the case, why the scare tactics? 6. Are there potential benefits to global warming? Again, I don’t ask this mockingly. Would a warmer climate in some areas actually improve living conditions? Would such improvement (health, crop production, lifestyle) balance any negative impact from the phenomenon? 7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition? There are some who say we can’t afford to wait, and, even if there’s some doubt, we should move ahead with altering the way we live. While there are good arguments for changing some of our environmental policies, should they be based on “what it?” 8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns? Nothing happens in a vacuum; there are always unintended consequences to our actions. For example, if we were to dramatically reduce our need for international oil, what happens to the economies of the Middle East and the populations that rely on oil income? There are thousands of other implications, some good and some bad. What are they? Shouldn’t we be thinking about them and talking about them? 9. How will we measure our successes? Is the measuring stick going to be temperature, sea level, number of annual hurricanes, rainfall, or a combination of all those things? Again, do we have a goal in mind? What happens when we get there? 10. How has this movement gained such momentum? We’ve faced environmental issues throughout our history, but it’s difficult to remember one which has gained such “status” in such a short time. To a skeptic, there seems to be a religious fervor that makes one wary. A gradual “ramping down” of the dire predictions has not led to a diminution of the doomsday rhetoric. Are these warning signs that the movement has become more of an activist cause than a scientific reality? Just asking.
12月27日 Quote Married man: ‘I slept with 13 women this week’Dr. Gail Saltz calls a troubled man a ‘sociopathic sex addict’ By Gail Saltz TODAYShow.com contributor updated 4:07 p.m. ET, Wed., Dec. 19, 2007 Q. I can’t get enough of women. I have to look at every woman who walks by. I watch porn, I flirt, I keep in touch with past girlfriends, I make new ones, I browse for women online. I get up to 30 e-mails a day from women. Once I have seduced them online, they are dying to meet me and usually sleep with me on the first date. Then I find the simplest flaw and use that against them to break it off. They are devastated. They feel I have used them sexually, and they are right. The kicker is that I am married. My wife is great, beautiful, intelligent and we have a good sex life. I am 41. We have been together for 25 years. I, however, still have a constant rotation of new women. I just can’t stop seducing other women and having sex with them. Nor do I want to, because I am having the time of my life. This is affecting my job, but only because it is so time-consuming. Typically, it takes three hours a day to write to women. Then I make phone calls to those higher on the rotation. Then I e-mail again for another three hours after my wife goes to bed. Then I do a few hours of research for new women. I have slept with an untold number of women. I would not call it an addiction because I like it so much and it makes me happy to meet them, seduce them, sleep with them and, yes, even break up with them. This week I will hit my all-time record of sleeping with 13 different women. They are all beautiful, intelligent and successful, and they all think we will live happily ever after. They have no idea that I am sleeping with so many other women, let alone married. I know hurting them emotionally is bad. I just can’t stop. To me it is all fair game as long as it is consensual. For me, it is not simply the sex, it is the seduction, and the mental games and pleasure I receive from this. To seduce a women to the point where she really wants to have sex with me is very stimulating to me. It is like I have scored a touchdown in the last few seconds of the Superbowl. I have gotten so good at the aftergame as well that I make only one call or e-mail. You are not what I was looking for, please don’t write me anymore. I never hear from them again. I find myself so manipulative it scares me sometimes. Part of the game, too, is being so manipulative with my wife that it feels like directing an orchestra. Move her here, date the wife, sleep with the girlfriend, get a new girlfriend, slot her in for Tuesday. Can you please give me some insight into what is going on? A. I think you are a sex addict and a sociopath. What you describe is sexual addiction. Like any addict, you have a feedback loop that provides you with positive reinforcement every time you make a conquest — hence your comparison to a winning touchdown in the big game. This gives you a dopamine high (dopamine being the neurotransmitter involved in pleasure and reward). It is also involved in sexual activity and addictive behaviors like compulsive gambling. What is so very disturbing is your complete lack of guilt, remorse or empathy for the other parties involved. You know intellectually that this is bad behavior, because you are aware you are betraying your spouse and hurting all the other woman you deal with. Yet it seems that you understand this only on a purely observational level. It sounds as though you have no capacity for emotion. You lack any ability to hold yourself morally accountable for your dishonest and harmful actions. You are easily able to rationalize hurting and mistreating others, whether they are strangers or relatives. In fact, you take pleasure in it. Hence, I also think you are a sociopath, with an utter lack of concern and regard for others. I suspect there are additional areas of your life where you repeatedly break the rules or injure others with no concern for the consequences. You might well destroy your marriage and your job. You are leaving a wake of destruction. For your own sake and for the sake of everyone else unfortunate enough to have their lives intersect with yours, you need help. If you don’t stop this behavior, you will likely contract a disease, get yourself arrested or enrage someone so much that you are harmed. If you want to try living a normal life — something beyond a life governed by sexual addiction — you need treatment, either individual treatment or group treatment. To my readers: People like this are often charming and charismatic. As you can see, this man has no trouble duping people and racking up innumerable conquests. If you encounter somebody like this, I suggest you get away as quickly as possible. Dr. Gail’s Bottom Line: A sociopathic sex addict behaves in ways that violate social norms.
| Read about a real-life Casanova |
Quote FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping toolThe FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations. The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him. Nextel cell phones owned by two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations. The FBI views Ardito as one of the most powerful men in the Genovese family, a major part of the national Mafia. The surveillance technique came to light in an opinion published this week by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan. He ruled that the "roving bug" was legal because federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect's cell phone. Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set. While the Genovese crime family prosecution appears to be the first time a remote-eavesdropping mechanism has been used in a criminal case, the technique has been discussed in security circles for years. The U.S. Commerce Department's security office warns that "a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone." An article in the Financial Times last year said mobile providers can "remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call." Nextel and Samsung handsets and the Motorola Razr are especially vulnerable to software downloads that activate their microphones, said James Atkinson, a counter-surveillance consultant who has worked closely with government agencies. "They can be remotely accessed and made to transmit room audio all the time," he said. "You can do that without having physical access to the phone." Because modern handsets are miniature computers, downloaded software could modify the usual interface that always displays when a call is in progress. The spyware could then place a call to the FBI and activate the microphone--all without the owner knowing it happened. (The FBI declined to comment on Friday.) "If a phone has in fact been modified to act as a bug, the only way to counteract that is to either have a bugsweeper follow you around 24-7, which is not practical, or to peel the battery off the phone," Atkinson said. Security-conscious corporate executives routinely remove the batteries from their cell phones, he added. FBI's physical bugs discovered
The FBI's Joint Organized Crime Task Force, which includes members of the New York police department, had little luck with conventional surveillance of the Genovese family. They did have a confidential source who reported the suspects met at restaurants including Brunello Trattoria in New Rochelle, N.Y., which the FBI then bugged. But in July 2003, Ardito and his crew discovered bugs in three restaurants, and the FBI quietly removed the rest. Conversations recounted in FBI affidavits show the men were also highly suspicious of being tailed by police and avoided conversations on cell phones whenever possible. That led the FBI to resort to "roving bugs," first of Ardito's Nextel handset and then of Peluso's. U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones approved them in a series of orders in 2003 and 2004, and said she expected to "be advised of the locations" of the suspects when their conversations were recorded. Details of how the Nextel bugs worked are sketchy. Court documents, including an affidavit (p1) and (p2) prepared by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kolodner in September 2003, refer to them as a "listening device placed in the cellular telephone." That phrase could refer to software or hardware. One private investigator interviewed by CNET News.com, Skipp Porteous of Sherlock Investigations in New York, said he believed the FBI planted a physical bug somewhere in the Nextel handset and did not remotely activate the microphone. "They had to have physical possession of the phone to do it," Porteous said. "There are several ways that they could have gotten physical possession. Then they monitored the bug from fairly near by." But other experts thought microphone activation is the more likely scenario, mostly because the battery in a tiny bug would not have lasted a year and because court documents say the bug works anywhere "within the United States"--in other words, outside the range of a nearby FBI agent armed with a radio receiver. In addition, a paranoid Mafioso likely would be suspicious of any ploy to get him to hand over a cell phone so a bug could be planted. And Kolodner's affidavit seeking a court order lists Ardito's phone number, his 15-digit International Mobile Subscriber Identifier, and lists Nextel Communications as the service provider, all of which would be unnecessary if a physical bug were being planted. A BBC article from 2004 reported that intelligence agencies routinely employ the remote-activiation method. "A mobile sitting on the desk of a politician or businessman can act as a powerful, undetectable bug," the article said, "enabling them to be activated at a later date to pick up sounds even when the receiver is down." For its part, Nextel said through spokesman Travis Sowders: "We're not aware of this investigation, and we weren't asked to participate." Other mobile providers were reluctant to talk about this kind of surveillance. Verizon Wireless said only that it "works closely with law enforcement and public safety officials. When presented with legally authorized orders, we assist law enforcement in every way possible." A Motorola representative said that "your best source in this case would be the FBI itself." Cingular, T-Mobile, and the CTIA trade association did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Mobsters: The surveillance vanguard
This isn't the first time the federal government has pushed at the limits of electronic surveillance when investigating reputed mobsters. In one case involving Nicodemo S. Scarfo, the alleged mastermind of a loan shark operation in New Jersey, the FBI found itself thwarted when Scarfo used Pretty Good Privacy software (PGP) to encode confidential business data. So with a judge's approval, FBI agents repeatedly snuck into Scarfo's business to plant a keystroke logger and monitor its output. Like Ardito's lawyers, Scarfo's defense attorneys argued that the then-novel technique was not legal and that the information gleaned through it could not be used. Also like Ardito, Scarfo's lawyers lost when a judge ruled in January 2002 that the evidence was admissible. This week, Judge Kaplan in the southern district of New York concluded that the "roving bugs" were legally permitted to capture hundreds of hours of conversations because the FBI had obtained a court order and alternatives probably wouldn't work. The FBI's "applications made a sufficient case for electronic surveillance," Kaplan wrote. "They indicated that alternative methods of investigation either had failed or were unlikely to produce results, in part because the subjects deliberately avoided government surveillance." Bill Stollhans, president of the Private Investigators Association of Virginia, said such a technique would be legally reserved for police armed with court orders, not private investigators. There is "no law that would allow me as a private investigator to use that type of technique," he said. "That is exclusively for law enforcement. It is not allowable or not legal in the private sector. No client of mine can ask me to overhear telephone or strictly oral conversations." Surreptitious activation of built-in microphones by the FBI has been done before. A 2003 lawsuit revealed that the FBI was able to surreptitiously turn on the built-in microphones in automotive systems like General Motors' OnStar to snoop on passengers' conversations. When FBI agents remotely activated the system and were listening in, passengers in the vehicle could not tell that their conversations were being monitored. Malicious hackers have followed suit. A report last year said Spanish authorities had detained a man who write a Trojan horse that secretly activated a computer's video camera and forwarded him the recordings. The FBI appears to have begun using a novel form of electronic surveillance in criminal investigations: remotely activating a mobile phone's microphone and using it to eavesdrop on nearby conversations. The technique is called a "roving bug," and was approved by top U.S. Department of Justice officials for use against members of a New York organized crime family who were wary of conventional surveillance techniques such as tailing a suspect or wiretapping him. Nextel cell phones owned by two alleged mobsters, John Ardito and his attorney Peter Peluso, were used by the FBI to listen in on nearby conversations. The FBI views Ardito as one of the most powerful men in the Genovese family, a major part of the national Mafia. The surveillance technique came to light in an opinion published this week by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan. He ruled that the "roving bug" was legal because federal wiretapping law is broad enough to permit eavesdropping even of conversations that take place near a suspect's cell phone. Kaplan's opinion said that the eavesdropping technique "functioned whether the phone was powered on or off." Some handsets can't be fully powered down without removing the battery; for instance, some Nokia models will wake up when turned off if an alarm is set. While the Genovese crime family prosecution appears to be the first time a remote-eavesdropping mechanism has been used in a criminal case, the technique has been discussed in security circles for years. The U.S. Commerce Department's security office warns that "a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone." An article in the Financial Times last year said mobile providers can "remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner's knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call." Nextel and Samsung handsets and the Motorola Razr are especially vulnerable to software downloads that activate their microphones, said James Atkinson, a counter-surveillance consultant who has worked closely with government agencies. "They can be remotely accessed and made to transmit room audio all the time," he said. "You can do that without having physical access to the phone." Because modern handsets are miniature computers, downloaded software could modify the usual interface that always displays when a call is in progress. The spyware could then place a call to the FBI and activate the microphone--all without the owner knowing it happene
Quote FBI turns to broad new wiretap method The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed. Instead of recording only what a particular suspect is doing, agents conducting investigations appear to be assembling the activities of thousands of Internet users at a time into massive databases, according to current and former officials. That database can subsequently be queried for names, e-mail addresses or keywords. Such a technique is broader and potentially more intrusive than the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system, later renamed DCS1000. It raises concerns similar to those stirred by widespread Internet monitoring that the National Security Agency is said to have done, according to documents that have surfaced in one federal lawsuit, and may stretch the bounds of what's legally permissible. Call it the vacuum-cleaner approach. It's employed when police have obtained a court order and an Internet service provider can't "isolate the particular person or IP address" because of technical constraints, says Paul Ohm, a former trial attorney at the Justice Department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. (An Internet Protocol address is a series of digits that can identify an individual computer.) That kind of full-pipe surveillance can record all Internet traffic, including Web browsing--or, optionally, only certain subsets such as all e-mail messages flowing through the network. Interception typically takes place inside an Internet provider's network at the junction point of a router or network switch. The technique came to light at the Search & Seizure in the Digital Age symposium held at Stanford University's law school on Friday. Ohm, who is now a law professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Richard Downing, a CCIPS assistant deputy chief, discussed it during the symposium. In a telephone conversation afterward, Ohm said that full-pipe recording has become federal agents' default method for Internet surveillance. "You collect wherever you can on the (network) segment," he said. "If it happens to be the segment that has a lot of IP addresses, you don't throw away the other IP addresses. You do that after the fact." "You intercept first and you use whatever filtering, data mining to get at the information about the person you're trying to monitor," he added. On Monday, a Justice Department representative would not immediately answer questions about this kind of surveillance technique. (Late Tuesday, the Justice Department responded with a statement taking issue with this description of the FBI's surveillance practices.) "What they're doing is even worse than Carnivore," said Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who attended the Stanford event. "What they're doing is intercepting everyone and then choosing their targets." When the FBI announced two years ago it had abandoned Carnivore, news reports said that the bureau would increasingly rely on Internet providers to conduct the surveillance and reimburse them for costs. While Carnivore was the subject of congressional scrutiny and outside audits, the FBI's current Internet eavesdropping techniques have received little attention. Carnivore apparently did not perform full-pipe recording. A technical report (PDF: "Independent Technical Review of the Carnivore System") from December 2000 prepared for the Justice Department said that Carnivore "accumulates no data other than that which passes its filters" and that it saves packets "for later analysis only after they are positively linked by the filter settings to a target." One reason why the full-pipe technique raises novel legal questions is that under federal law, the FBI must perform what's called "minimization." Federal law says that agents must "minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interception" and keep the supervising judge informed of what's happening. Minimization is designed to provide at least a modicum of privacy by limiting police eavesdropping on innocuous conversations. "The question that's interesting...is whether this is illegal, whether it's constitutional. Is Congress even aware they're doing this?" --Paul Ohm, law professor
University of Colorado at Boulder Prosecutors routinely hold presurveillance "minimization meetings" with investigators to discuss ground rules. Common investigatory rules permit agents to listen in on a phone call for two minutes at a time, with at least one minute elapsing between the spot-monitoring sessions. That section of federal law mentions only real-time interception--and does not explicitly authorize the creation of a database with information on thousands of innocent targets. But a nearby sentence adds: "In the event the intercepted communication is in a code or foreign language, and an expert in that foreign language or code is not reasonably available during the interception period, minimization may be accomplished as soon as practicable after such interception." Downing, the assistant deputy chief at the Justice Department's computer crime section, pointed to that language on Friday. Because digital communications amount to a foreign language or code, he said, federal agents are legally permitted to record everything and sort through it later. (Downing stressed that he was not speaking on behalf of the Justice Department.) "Take a look at the legislative history from the mid '90s," Downing said. "It's pretty clear from that that Congress very much intended it to apply to electronic types of wiretapping." EFF's Bankston disagrees. He said that the FBI is "collecting and apparently storing indefinitely the communications of thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of innocent Americans in violation of the Wiretap Act and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution." Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., said a reasonable approach would be to require that federal agents only receive information that's explicitly permitted by the court order. "The obligation should be on both the (Internet provider) and the government to make sure that only the information responsive to the warrant is disclosed to the government," he said. Courts have been wrestling with minimization requirements for over a generation. In a 1978 Supreme Court decision, Scott v. United States, the justices upheld police wiretaps of people suspected of selling illegal drugs. But in his majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist said that broad monitoring to nab one suspect might go too far. "If the agents are permitted to tap a public telephone because one individual is thought to be placing bets over the phone, substantial doubts as to minimization may arise if the agents listen to every call which goes out over that phone regardless of who places the call," he wrote. Another unanswered question is whether a database of recorded Internet communications can legally be mined for information about unrelated criminal offenses such as drug use, copyright infringement or tax crimes. One 1978 case, U.S. v. Pine, said that investigators could continue to listen in on a telephone line when other illegal activities--not specified in the original wiretap order--were being discussed. Those discussions could then be used against a defendant in a criminal prosecution. Ohm, the former Justice Department attorney who presented a paper on the Fourth Amendment, said he has doubts about the constitutionality of full-pipe recording. "The question that's interesting, although I don't know whether it's so clear, is whether this is illegal, whether it's constitutional," he said. "Is Congress even aware they're doing this? I don't know the answers."
12月26日 Quote John Glenn said... This should make you think a little: There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the faircity of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That'sjust one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn countryof Iraq.When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war,state the following:a. FDR led us into World War II.b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 liveswere lost, an average of 112,500 per year.c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea North Korea neverattacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of18,334 per year.d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam neverattacked us.e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 liveswere lost, an average of 5,800 per year.f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnianever attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platterthree times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multipleoccasions.g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush hasliberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, putnuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing ashot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his ownpeople.The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But Wait It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take theBranch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for lesstime than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billingrecords.It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines todestroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call thepolice after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick.It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes inFlorida!Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale ishigh! The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.But wait! There's more!JOHN GLENN (on the Senate floor - January 26, 2004)Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what theydo for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and SenatorHoward Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressiveimpromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanationof why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have neverserved think of the military.Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn):'How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?'Senator Glenn (D-Ohio):'I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served throughtwo wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't mycheckbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-fivejob, where I took time off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank.''I ask you to go with me, as I went the other day... to a veteran'shospital and look those men, with their mangled bodies, in the eye, andtell THEM they didn't hold a job!You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, tothe widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee... andyou look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't holda job.You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington NationalCemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember,and you watch those waving flags.You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME thatthose people didn't have a job?What about you?'For those who don't remember During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was anattorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.Now he's a Senator!If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English thank a Veteran. Quote Did you know?Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies inIraq?Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 millionIraqi people?Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools areunder rehabilitation, 263 new schools are now under construction and 38new schools have been completed in Iraq?Did you know that Iraq 's higher educational structure consists of 20Universities, 46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, allcurrently operating?Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States inJanuary 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have 5 -100-footpatrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.Did you know that Iraq 's Air Force consists of three operationalsquadrons, which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transportaircraft (under Iraqi operational control) which operate day and night,and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a CommandoBattalion?Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trainedand equipped police officers?Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over3500 new officers every 8 weeks?Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on inIraq?They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroadstations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electricalfacilities.Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primaryschool by mid October?Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq andphone use has gone up 158%?Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had atelevised debate recently?OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW! WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?BECAUSE... OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!Instead of reflecting our love for our country, we get photos of flagburning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at thepresidential motorcades.Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves twopurposes:It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United Statesthus minimizing consequent support, and it is intended to discourageAmerican citizens.---- Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site.Pass it on!http://www.defense.gov/http://www.pentagon.mil/http://www.defenselink.mil/http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq.htmlhttp://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq.htmlhttp://www.jcs.mil Quote Seven Medical Myths Even Doctors BelieveMonday , December 24, 2007 Reading in dim light won't damage your eyes, you don't need eight glasses of water a day to stay healthy and shaving your legs won't make the hair grow back faster. These well-worn theories are among seven "medical myths" exposed in a paper published in the British Medical Journal, which traditionally carries light-hearted features in its Christmas edition. The research was conducted by Aaron Carroll, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, and Rachel Vreeman, fellow in children's health services research at Indiana University School of Medicine. They took seven common beliefs and searched the archives for evidence to support them. Despite frequent mentions in the popular press of the need to drink eight glasses of water, they found no scientific basis for the claim. The complete lack of evidence has been recorded in a study published the American Journal of Psychology, they said. The other six "myths" are: Reading in dim light ruins your eyesight The majority of eye experts believed it was unlikely to do any permanent damage, but it might make you squint, blink more and have trouble focusing, the researchers said. Shaving makes hair grow back faster or coarser It has no effect on the thickness or rate of hair regrowth, studies say. But stubble lacks the finer taper of unshaven hair, giving the impression of coarseness. Eating turkey makes you drowsy It does contain an amino acid called tryptophan that is involved in sleep and mood control. But turkey has no more of the acid than chicken or minced beef. Eating lots of food and drink at Christmas are probably the real cause of sleepiness. We use only 10 percent of our brains This myth arose as early as 1907 but imaging shows no area of the brain is silent or completely inactive. Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death This idea may stem from ghoulish novels. The researchers said the skin dries out and retracts after death, giving the appearance of longer hair or nails. Cell phones are dangerous in hospitals Despite widespread concerns, studies have found minimal interference with medical equipment.
Quote Source of Liberal Rage
by Daniel Pipes
Issue 98 - December 26, 2007 What happened to the self-assured, optimistic, and practical Democratic Party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy? Why has Joe Lieberman, their closest contemporary incarnation, been run out of the party? How did anti-Americanism infect schools, the media, and Hollywood? And whence comes the liberal rage that conservatives like Ann Coulter, Jeff Jacoby, Michelle Malkin, and the Media Research Center have extensively documented? In a tour de force, James Piereson of the Manhattan Institute offers an historical explanation both novel and convincing. His book, Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism (Encounter), traces liberalism's slide into anti-Americanism back to the seemingly minor fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was neither a segregationist nor a cold warrior but a communist. Here's what Piereson argues: During the roughly forty years preceding the Kennedy assassination on November 22, 1963, progressivism/liberalism was the reigning and nearly only public philosophy; Kennedy, a tough and realistic centrist, came out of an effective tradition that aimed, and succeeded, in expanding democracy and the welfare state. In contrast, Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower lacked an intellectual alternative to liberalism and so merely slowed it down. The conservative "Remnant" led by William F. Buckley, Jr. had virtually no impact on policy. The radical right, embodied by the John Birch Society, spewed illogical and ineffectual fanaticism. Kennedy's assassination profoundly affected liberalism, Piereson explains, because Oswald, a New Left-style communist, murdered Kennedy to protect Fidel Castro's rule in Cuba from the president who, during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, brandished America's military card. Kennedy, in brief, died because he was so tough in the cold war. Liberals resisted this fact because it contradicted their belief system and, instead, presented Kennedy as a victim of the radical right and a martyr for liberal causes. This political phantasm required two audacious steps. The first applied to Oswald: - Ignoring his communist outlook by characterizing him as an extreme rightist. Thus, New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison asserted that "Oswald would have been more at home with Mein Kampf than Das Kapital."
- Reducing his role to insignificance by (1) theorizing about some sixteen other assassins or (2) spinning a giant conspiracy in which Oswald was a dupe of the mafia, the Ku Klux Klan, anti-Castro Cubans, White Russians, Texas oil millionaires, international bankers, the CIA, the FBI, the military-industrial complex, the generals, or Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson.
With Oswald nearly deleted from the narrative, or even turned into a scapegoat, the ruling establishment – Johnson, Jacqueline Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover, and many others – proceeded to take a second, astonishing step. They blamed the assassination not on Oswald the communist but on the American people, and the radical right in particular, accusing them of killing Kennedy for his being too soft in the cold war or too accommodating to civil rights for American blacks. Here are just four of the examples Piereson cites documenting that wild distortion: - Chief Justice Earl Warren decried the supposed "hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots."
- Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield raged against "the bigotry, the hatred, prejudice and the arrogance which converged in that moment of horror to strike him down."
- Congressman Adam Clayton Powell advised, "Weep not for Jack Kennedy, but weep for America."
- A New York Times editorial lamented "The shame all America must bear for the spirit of madness and hate that struck down President John F. Kennedy."
In this "denial or disregard" of Oswald's motives and guilt, Piereson locates the rank origins of American liberalism's turn toward anti-American pessimism. "The reformist emphasis of American liberalism, which had been pragmatic and forward-looking, was overtaken by a spirit of national self-condemnation." Viewing the United States as crass, violent, racist, and militarist shifted liberalism's focus from economics to cultural issues (racism, feminism, sexual freedom, gay rights). This change helped spawn the countercultural movement of the late 1960s; more lastingly, it fed a "residue of ambivalence" about the worth of traditional American institutions and the validity of deploying U.S. military power that 44 years later remains liberalism's general outlook. Thus does Oswald's malign legacy live on in 2007, yet harming and perverting liberalism, still polluting the national debate.
Quote Abortion To the States?
by Lisa Fabrizio
Issue 98 - December 26, 2007 Short weeks after receiving the endorsement of the National Right to Life Committee, Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson apparently ran afoul of some in the pro-life movement, when, in an interview on Fox News Sunday, he revealed that he does not support a Human Life Amendment (HLA) to the U.S. Constitution. Can one be pro-life and not in favor of a Constitutional Amendment which seeks a federal ban on abortion? The easy answer is that one can and probably should be both. But at this time in our history, the amendment process is, sadly, a pipe dream. Imagine trying to get two thirds of both houses of our Democratic Congress to even propose such an amendment. Then further fantasize that three fourths of the states would ratify it in the present political climate. This is an all-or-nothing approach that in all probability would save no lives. Thompson correctly points out that working for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, then making the fight a state-by-state process is a much more realistic and feasible goal. A states-rights argument should not only appeal to federalists, but ought to be seen as the best current solution by all who cherish life. I’m with the folks who say that abortion is murder, and in this country, murder and its consequences have always been defined by each individual state. And this is where the battle lines must be drawn. One reason is that dealing with state legislators would be easier than battling their federal counterparts who are in the grips of lobbyists and other special interest groups; the locals are closer to the people they represent and therefore more accountable to them. Another, and probably more important, is the fact that the pro-death faction fears this route the most. They know that, should the question of abortion descend from the dark tower of judicial tyranny and land where it belongs; in the hands of the people, their ‘cause’ is in trouble. Most believe that we are only one pro-life presidential Supreme Court nominee away from this. Planned Parenthood’s Laura Lambert called the Court’s recent decision to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Act (PBA): [A] clear signal to those who seek to dismantle the 34-year-old decision that the court will be receptive to ever more intrusive efforts to limit access to abortion… This expansive approach to a state’s right to restrict and limit abortion is one of the most disturbing parts of the opinion. The next logical step is to roll back decades of indoctrination and convince people that abortion is indeed the murder of a human person. Why? The answer lies in the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. Justice Blackmun wrote, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the (Fourteenth) Amendment." After the heinous murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner, the U.S. Congress finally passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2004 which states, “the term ‘unborn child’…means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” Though this act only covers federal crimes, the wording is crucial as it is now codified in the U.S. Code. Half of the states in America already recognize unborn children as victims of crime at any stage of pre-natal development, while another ten do so with limitations. And while it’s true that these laws have provisions excepting cases of abortion, the good news is that all legal challenges to the definition of unborn children as ‘persons’ have thus far been defeated. Someone wise once said that science is God’s way of explaining himself to us. If that is true, then the development of 4D ultrasound technology is a highly instructive and heaven-sent tool for protecting life. So much so, that there are presently ten states with “witness to womb” laws which require doctors to offer ultrasounds to women considering abortions, and another five states are considering similar measures. Whether we fight to pass the HLA or localize the battle for the hearts and minds of the American people, one of the most important steps is to elect a president dedicated to the protection of innocent human life. For those who say that a president can have no impact on pro-life issues, remember who vetoed the PBA twice before it was signed by George W. Bush. It was President Bush who, in May of this year, sent a letter to the Congressional Democratic leadership: I am writing to make sure that there is no misunderstanding of my views on these important issues…I believe it is the most basic duty of Government to guard the innocent. With that in mind, I will veto any legislation that weakens current Federal policies and laws on abortion, or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage.
Quote Jeanne's Gun Stops Shooter
by Ted Nugent
Issue 98 - December 26, 2007  Jeanne Assam was one of approximately 7000 worshippers at the New Hope Church in Colorado Springs. A gathering of Christians praising God and dedicating themselves to a spiritual upgrade to be better Americans and human beings. It is the basic premise of churchgoers everywhere in this unique land where freedom of religion is considered a “self-evident truth,” an individual right bestowed upon us by our Creator. A weekly thank you to Him seems to be in order by those good souls who still think clearly and pursue a good, positive way of life. It is all good.
But Jeanne, Godbless her righteous soul, was packing two handguns this fine church day. She had never had the need to draw either one of her guns in the past, but as a thinking, caring American, she knew that rugged individualism and real world independency means being prepared. And prepared she was when the loud, shocking concussions of rifle shots rang out in the entranceway of the church. Her natural instincts of good over evil kicked into gear, and like millions of concealed weapons carriers across America, the pistols in her belt gave her pragmatic confidence that she could neutralize an apparent evil force in the House of God.
Jeanne didn’t run scared, scream, cower, or flee for her life. She knew that to do so was to give signals of helplessness and in fact, be helpless. Instead, she drew a gun and raced toward the approaching gunshots, just like I have written in so many of my writings over the years. When a human being gives serious, genuine thought to the incremental programming of sheepishness so thoroughly crammed down America’s throats by a media infested with cowardly liberals, condemning individual rights and thinking, natural instincts dictate just the opposite response, and Jeanne was living proof.
And this dainty, svelte young woman couldn’t possibly fit the profile so desperately attempted by the anti-gun nuts, for she has no macho baggage and no intentionally misrepresented NRA imagery to overcome. She is a woman, a human being, with the natural right to defend herself and innocents from evil, and she did what her heart told her to do.
Further irritating the mainstream media’s hatred of Christianity, she credits God as her guiding light, protecting her from the hi-powered rifle, two handguns and more than 1000 rounds of ammo in the possession of the maniacal madman attacking her congregation. She courageously ran toward the danger and shot the bum dead. Next.
We like it when maniacal madman hellbent on slaughtering innocents are shot dead instead. And we like brave people who know that innocent lives need to be protected from madmen by shooting them dead with a gun on our person. We know that gunfree zones are irresponsible, dangerous, anti-human, anti-security and anti-American. We don’t like politicians or people who pretend otherwise. We don’t think a madman who opens fire in malls, cafeterias, churches, schools or our neighborhoods have any rights whatsoever. We believe good should live, evil should be gotten rid of. And we know the difference between good and evil without some newspaper editor or bureaucrat telling us if we got it right or not. I wish there would always be a Jeanne Assam every 100 feet in America so the bad guys would get the real message from America “Don’t tread on me!” Threaten innocent lives and we will shoot you dead.
I’m sending Jeanne Assam an expensive Christmas present and a life membership in the NRA.
12月25日 Quote A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. "Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories." We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" the "silent majority" is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population, it was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"? History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life. Lastly, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, can contribute to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on!! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this - think about it - and send it on.
Quote Townhall.com Spotlight
| | | Thursday, December 20, 2007 Consumer Group: PETA Is Hiding Its Grisly Death Toll
 The animal “rights” activists at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are none too happy about the Center for Consumer Freedom’s PETAKillsAnimals.com. Thanks to us, millions of people have seen firsthand the irrefutable evidence that PETA, which publicly proclaims that bunnies and babies are morally equal, kills animals by the thousands. (Don’t believe us? Click here for the proof.)
Our damning documents come courtesy of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), which requires “humane societies” to annually report their euthanasia rates. PETA filed the required “Animal Record” reports from 1998 to 2005.
These records show that during those years, PETA killed over 14,400 dogs, cats, and other shelter pets at its Norfolk headquarters. (Still don’t believe us? We’ve still got the proof.)
PETA is no longer complying with VDACS’ legal reporting requirement. Online records show PETA has only filed 2006 information on collected wildlife, not shelter animals. But even the incomplete figures are true to form: PETA employees killed 248 out of 249.
If they’re willing to admit to that, imagine what they’ve decided to keep secret.
The public has the right to know how many “companion animals” met their demise on the business end of a PETA syringe last year.
We won’t stop digging until we have answers.
Click here for the full story.
Click here to help us fund more ads.
| 
12月23日
Quote
Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Ago
Thursday , December 20, 2007
WASHINGTON — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.
"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,'' long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said.
A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.
The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.
Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.
The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.
The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said.
Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said.
"This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution,'' which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said.
"It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent,'' said Means.
The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence — an overt play on the title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.
Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks were in a row,'' Means said.
One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples — despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws.
"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children,'' Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.
The U.S. "annexation'' of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people,'' said Means.
Oppression at the hands of the U.S. government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies - less than 44 years - in the world.
Lakota teen suicides are 150 per cent above the norm for the U.S.; infant mortality is five times higher than the U.S. average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's website. Quote The EU's Treaty Treachery Posted 12/17/2007 ET
To millions of Britons, December 13, 2007 is a date which will live in infamy. In the Labor Party’s 2006 Election Manifesto, the British people were given a devout promise that there would be a referendum on whether to sign on to the proposed EU Constitution. Gordon Brown reaffirmed this vow when he succeeded Tony Blair as Prime Minister in July of this year. The promise was an empty one. The proposed EU Constitution -- meant to replace all previous treaties -- was already legally dead thanks to ”no” votes by both the French and the Dutch in 2005. But behind the scenes, there has been treachery afoot these past 30 months. Bureaucrats never take your “no” for the answer to what they want. Slowly, the Euro forces began cosmetic surgery. The Constitution underwent a political makeover and re-emerged as the new EU Reform Treaty, a document which is not only the same as the failed EU Constitution, but has added even more bureaucracy to it. On Thursday morning, December 13 in Lisbon, Portugal, the Presidents and Prime Ministers from the 27 member nations were to gather to sign this new Treaty. All were present except for Gordon Brown. He sent his Foreign Minister. David Milliband signed this historical document on behalf of the UK when the cameras were flashing. Brown explained his absence as a “conflict of scheduling.” Then events took a turn toward treachery worthy of a Shakespearian play. Three hours later, Brown surreptitiously arrived. Cowering in a back room off the main hall - where he had hoped in vain to avoid the cameras -- the pusillanimous Prime Minister signed the document. One EU insider dryly remarked that Brown acted like someone who was trying to keep a dirty little secret. Brown seems to have imagined that this out-of-sight out-of-mind tactic would fool the British public. Hardly. The Shadow (Conservative) Foreign Minister, William Hague, asked what the members of the EU would think of a man who “dithers for a week about whether or not he wants to be photographed putting pen to paper.” To others it was more a case of Brown proving to be as handy with a knife as Brutus. So just what are the most important points of the so-called “Reform Treaty” as they impact minor details like, for instance, British sovereignty? The EU is designed to be a superstructure entity that creates a single foreign policy and one-stop overarching decision-making powers which will be directed downwards to all its member states. Until now, the heads of the 27 member nations served six month rotations as nominal EU President. That egalitarian practice is now dead. There is to be a new all-powerful unelected President of Europe, appointed by the 27 heads of state - not elected by the 350 million people of new Europe. (Frustrated Democrats who have never gotten over the US 2000 election, please note). Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the UK, has been heavily tipped to take over this coveted post. Although the initial idea of a single EU Foreign Minister was abandoned in this round of “ever closer union”, the new Treaty calls for a Foreign Policy Chief -- who will hold diplomatic status and head up the new EU Foreign Service bureaucracy. What’s in a name? Perhaps everything. Great Britain and Poland asked to opt out of signing on to the 50-article Charter of Fundamental Rights -- for the time being. This charter promises life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and religions freedom. It then goes on to promise universal collective bargaining, fair working conditions and shelter. Yes, shelter. No one in the New Europe will be allowed to be homeless. The UK continues to demure on joining the Euro. But this Treaty puts yet more pressure on Great Britain to ditch the Pound in favor of New Europe’s collective currency. The most sinister part of the Treaty is contained in another rule. This one gives the EU rights to overturn decisions made by Britain’s Immigration and Asylum Tribunal. Those who have sought -- and have been rejected -- as asylum seekers in the UK now have the right to take their cases over the head of Great Britain’s highest court and appeal to the unelected European Court of Justice in Luxembourg whose EU bureaucrats will have the final say. Giving the EU authorities power to trump immigration and border issues inside the UK is seen as the end of their democracy by many a Brit. When the EU Court of Justice can overrule any member nation’s own judiciary, another piece of national sovereignty has been signed away. The output of venom directed against the Prime Minister since Wednesday’s dirty deed has been stunning. The most vociferous critics of Brown’s stealth execution of the treaty are calling for his severed head to be skewered on a pike and set above the Thames. This was often the fate of traitors in earlier times. The British have such colorful traditions. Others have suggested that the Tower of London be re-commissioned to serve as a prison for Brown and his minions. Calls have been raised for a million people to surround the Houses of Parliament in a massive protest where this Treaty must be ratified in the House of Commons. Two full weeks of debate have been promised the public -- but then promises come cheap in politics. Brown himself has been compared to Neville Chamberlain, who returned to England from Germany in 1938 waving a paper which Adolph Hitler had written promising that there would be no future war. British veterans and their heirs must surely wonder why two world wars were fought and millions of lives lost if the British sovereignty would eventually be surrendered -- by their own government -- to their former continental enemies. Brown is also now being parodied in cartoons and editorials which compare him to that bumbling silent English loner, Mr. Bean. After all, the wags point out, Brown doesn’t like to even mingle with his EU counterparts. Brown bungles about like Mr. Bean, although Mr. Bean’s awkwardness and its consequences are inadvertent. And like the bumbling Mr. Bean, since Brown went slinking off to Portugal to sign away his country’s autonomy, Brown has mumbled to the English press that the new EU treaty "would provide a lasting framwork for the EU" yet at the same time create "a circle of reflection" on the EU's long term future.
Of course, there is a technical flaw in that observation. Gordon Brown isn’t English. He’s a sly and canny Scot. Come to that, so is Tony Blair. Many a wary English eye is now being cast north of Hadrian’s Wall. Just a few months ago, the ever more powerful Scottish Parliament voted to give every one of its citizens free health care, the costs for which will be taken out of English pockets. Is the new Europe Reform Treaty part of the Great Scottish Plot? Is this Braveheart’s Revenge?
Quote Stand By Steyn Posted 12/19/2007 ET
The Canadian Human Rights Commission and the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal have begun proceedings against Mark Steyn, author of America Alone. They are responding to complaints from the Canadian Islamic Congress about an excerpt from the book that was published in the Canadian journal Maclean’s. “The article,” the CIC claims, “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt,” and was “flagrantly Islamophobic.” To be sure, the article was pretty strong stuff. Here’s a bit of it: “There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe -- without swords, without guns, without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” Even worse, it goes on to say: “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children.” “A Muslim continent”! “The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes”! No wonder the CIC was upset. And not just the CIC: writer Jim Henley, whose articles have appeared in The New Republic and The American Spectator Online, quoted the “mosquitoes” line and called Steyn a “racist.” There were just two problems: The “Muslim continent” statement is not only factual, it’s stated in words no one can characterize as inflammatory. (Also, it’s been said by Libya’s strongman Muammar Qaddafi). Second, “The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes” was not Steyn’s phrase. He was quoting Mullah Krekar, a jihadist who currently resides in Norway, although officials have been trying for years to get him out of the country.. And that sums up the problem with the Canadian human rights commissions’ action against Steyn: he was simply reporting on contemporary European reality. It was not Mark Steyn, but Algerian leader Houari Boumédienne who said at the United Nations in 1974: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” Those who want to silence Steyn want to suppress facts and limit free speech. It was not Steyn who said that “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor,” and that “the conquest this time will not be by the sword but by preaching and ideology.” That was Al-Jazeera’s Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradhawi, who is widely hailed as a moderate reformer in the West. Did Steyn say that Muslims “will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it”? Nope. That one comes from a Saudi Sheikh, Muhammad bin Abd Al-Rahman Al-‘Arifi, imam of the mosque of King Fahd Defense Academy. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is putting itself in the peculiar position of penalizing those non-Muslims who report on such statements, as if it is somehow an act encouraging “hatred and contempt” to reveal the unpleasant reality that comprises mainstream Islamic rhetoric today. There is no indication that the CHRC has done a thing to investigate the possibility that some Muslims in Canada might hold the views of Mullah Krekar, Qaddafi, Boumédienne, Qaradhawi and Sheikh Muhammad. When the CIC’s President Mohamed Elmasry said in 2004 that all Israelis over age eighteen were legitimate targets, the CHRC took no action. But Elmasry, you see, is part of a protected victim class. Actions like the one against Steyn threaten the foundation of free society. Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination, once you declare that these people -- whoever they may be -- must at all costs not be offended, then you have destroyed one of the essential elements of free speech and political debate. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to force their neighbor to be silent if his opinions offend them. If offensive speech had been prohibited in the 1770s, there would be no United States of America, and that is one of the reasons for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of course, Canada is a different case -- but wherever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified. That is no less so in this case, although the tyrant in question is of a different kind.
Quote Gore Files Lawsuits Against Time Posted 12/19/2007 ET
Lawyers for former Vice President Al Gore have filed numerous lawsuits against Time magazine, alleging a series of voting irregularities they maintain deprived Gore of Time’s “Person of the Year” Award. It has been announced that Russian President Vladimir Putin received the 2007 award, with Gore finishing second. Details of the suits are sketchy, but one of them accuses certain unnamed Time employees of denying others the right to vote when it was determined they were leaning toward Gore. Rumors have surfaced that one employee, known only as “Chad”, has confirmed those rumors. Another separate suit claims the voting process to be far too complicated to be understood by, to quote the lawsuit, “a bunch of journalists.” Gore’s lawyers are calling for a recount of the ballots in question. They also demand that independent observers from the United Nations Commission on Climate Change be allowed access to any recount procedures. “Mr. Gore has won an Emmy and an Oscar for his important work, not to mention a Nobel Peace Prize,” said a spokesman for the Vice President. “They don’t even have an Oscar ceremony in Russia. Who ever sees Russian films anyway?” Some Gore supporters have accused Republicans of using dirty tricks to manipulate the results. One close advisor, requesting anonymity, claimed, “Putin is just the kind of civil-rights-trampling dictator the GOP loves to see in power. It would be interesting to sit down with those who voted and find out just how many have been subjected to Guantanamo-like coercion. Republicans knew Bush wouldn’t win, so this was the next best thing.” So far, there have been no official comments from the White House, the Kremlin or Time. *This was originally posted on Pat Sajak's website.*
Quote
Is World War III on Hold?
Posted 12/14/2007 ET
The White House campaign to stampede this nation into war, to smash Iran's nuclear facilities before she acquires the capability to build an atom bomb, has been derailed, probably for the duration of the Bush presidency.
And the Bush policy -- to leave the military option on the table while pressing China, Russia and NATO to back tougher sanctions in the Security Council -- has been torpedoed.
Who are the sappers of the Bush policy? The leaders of the 16 intelligence agencies Bush commands. For even as he was raising the specter of "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III," those 16 agencies downgraded and virtually dismissed the threat, by declaring that Iran suspended its drive for nuclear weapons -- in 2003.
To have the intelligence community make a public declaration that undermines the foreign policy of a president, even as it calls his credibility into question, is unprecedented.
Nor is that the only astonishing aspect of the new National Intelligence Estimate that flatly contradicts the 2005 NIE, which had concluded that Iran was plowing ahead toward a nuclear weapon.
For if the intelligence agencies were 100 percent wrong about Iraq's WMD, the casus belli of today's war, and they have been 100 percent wrong for four years about Iran's drive for nuclear weapons, how can we trust them? How can we rely on them in formulating policy?
And if we cannot trust our intelligence agencies to distinguish disinformation from truth, and if we have blundered horribly once into war and almost blundered a second time, how can we justify the Bush policy of pre-emptive strikes and preventive war?
Other questions arise.
What did the president know, and when did he know it?
Was Bush aware that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program, years ago, when he was using his apocalyptic rhetoric about nuclear holocaust and World War III?
If so, that is indefensible.
And if the NIE is right today, why was it wrong again in 2005, two years after the intelligence community was wrong about Iraq's WMD? Why did it take us longer than World World II -- from 2003 to late 2007 -- to find out the truth about our putative enemy?
The NIE also reports that Iran probably lacks the capability to produce a nuclear weapon until between 2010 and 2015.
This implies that the uranium enrichment being done at Natanz is either not proceeding at the pace President Ahmadinejad claims, or the centrifuges are not working. For if Iran were actually running 3,000 centrifuges at full speed, and they were working properly, we have been told Iran could have enough fissile material for a rudimentary bomb by the end of next year.
What, then, is the real truth about Iran's nuclear program and its potential? And what was the nature of the military program that Iran supposedly stopped back in 2003?
The NIE also said that Iran is using a "cost-benefit" analysis in deciding whether to proceed with a nuclear weapons program.
This, however, is a direct challenge to the madman theory. That theory holds that if Iran builds a bomb, Ahmadinejad will use it against Israel or us, or give it to terrorists to use against Israel or us, to start the Armageddon that will bring back the 12th Imam.
But if Iran's regime is rational, which is how it has behaved, if not how it talks, we have an altogether different adversary we can deal with. For while possession of an atom bomb may give Iran a deterrent, it would also set in train a series of almost certain events that would do less to enhance the security of Iran than to imperil it permanently.
For, if Iran acquires an atomic weapon, Israel will put its nuclear arsenal of hundreds of warheads on a hair trigger. The United States would re-target nuclear weapons on Iran. Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia would almost certainly acquire nuclear weapons or a nuclear capacity. How would any of that make Shia Iran safer in a Sunni world?
Finally, if Iran did suspend or terminate its nuclear weapons program in 2003, this suggests that the arrival of the U.S. army in Baghdad, and the capture of Saddam, concentrated the minds of the mullahs wonderfully. This suggests that those who say Iran, like Libya, had on offer a grand bargain -- to give up nuclear ambitions and end its aid to Hamas and Hezbollah, in return for an end to sanctions and the U.S. drive for regime change, and the normalization of relations -- may have been right.
Thus, what the NIE implies is that George Bush may have missed the opportunity to put himself in the history books alongside Nixon, who opened up China, and Reagan, who ended the Cold War with Russia. 12月19日
Quote
Posted by George Ou @ 7:14 am December 18th, 2007
The year 2007 has been an interesting year that brought us improved security with Windows Vista and Mac OS X Leopard (10.5). But to get some perspective of how many publicly known holes found in these two operating systems, I’ve compiled all the security flaws in Mac OS X and Windows XP and Vista and placed them side by side. This is significant because it shows a trend that can give us a good estimate for how many flaws we can expect to find in the coming months. The more monthly flaws there are in the historical trend, the more likely it is that someone will find a hole to exploit in the future. For example back in April of this year, hackers took over a fully patched Macbook and won $10,000 plus the Macbook they hacked.
I used vulnerability statistics from an impartial third party vendor Secunia and I broke them down by Windows XP flaws, Vista flaws, and Mac OS X flaws. Since Secunia doesn’t offer individual numbers for Mac OS X 10.5 and 10.4, I merged the XP and Vista vulnerabilities so that we can compare Vista XP flaws to Mac OS X. In case you’re wondering how 19 plus 12 could equal 23, this is because there are many overlapping flaws that is shared between XP and Vista so those don’t get counted twice just as I don’t count something that affects Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 twice.
| Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X vulnerability stats for 2007
|
|
| XP
| Vista
| XP Vista
| Mac OS X
|
| Total extremely critical
| 3
| 1
| 4
| 0
|
| Total highly critical
| 19
| 12
| 23
| 234
|
| Total moderately critical
| 2
| 1
| 3
| 2
|
| Total less critical
| 3
| 1
| 4
| 7
|
| Total flaws
| 34
| 20
| 44
| 243
|
| Average flaws per month
| 2.83
| 1.67
| 3.67
| 20.25 |
X Extremely critical
H Highly critical
M Moderately critical
L Less critical
So this shows that Apple had more than 5 times the number of flaws per month than Windows XP and Vista in 2007, and most of these flaws are serious. Clearly this goes against conventional wisdom because the numbers show just the opposite and it isn’t even close.
Also noteworthy is that while Windows Vista shows fewer flaws than Windows XP and has more mitigating factors against exploitation, the addition of Windows Defender and Sidebar added 4 highly critical flaws to Vista that weren’t present in Windows XP. Sidebar accounted for three of those additional vulnerabilities and it’s something I am glad I don’t use. The lone Defender critical vulnerability that was supposed to defend Windows Vista was ironically the first critical vulnerability for Windows Vista.
12月18日 Quote Posted by Larry Dignan @ 2:12 am The state of Ohio has released a comprehensive study of voting machine security and the report will have you longing for paper. A 334-page PDF report from the Ohio Secretary of State reveals insufficient security, poor implementation of security technology, lax auditing and shoddy software maintenance. The report, which covers voting systems from Election Systems and Software (ES&S), Hart InterCivic and Premier Election Solutions formerly known as Diebold, was conducted by Ohio’s EVEREST (Evaluation and Validation of Election-Related Equipment, Standards and Testing) initiative in conjunction with research teams from Penn State, University of Pennsylvania and WebWise Security. The EVEREST report was released Dec. 7 and I found it via Slashdot. Overall, the report really raises questions about election systems. Buffer overflows, leaky
encryption, audit problems and firmware issues abound. One machine, the M100, from ES&S accepts counterfeit ballots. The Premier AV-TSX allows an unauthenticated user to read or tamper with its memory. The Hart EMS has audit logs that can be erased. In fact, the first 17 pages of the report–essentially the table of contents–is an indictment of these systems. To make matters worse, these machines don’t run
constantly. That means malicious software could be planted and not turn up until election time. These machines aren’t patched regularly either. The report is too massive to detail completely here, but at a high level here are the takeaways from the EVEREST report: - Systems uniformly stunk at security and “failed to adequately address important threats against election data and processes.”
- A root cause of these security failures was “pervasive mis-application of security technology.” Standard practices for cryptography, key and password management and security hardware go ignored.
- Auditing capabilities are a no show. “In all systems, the logs of election practices were commonly forgeable or erasable by the principals who they were intended to be monitoring.” Translation: If there’s an attack the lack of auditing means you can’t isolate or recover from the problem.
- Software maintenance practices “of the studied systems are deeply flawed.” The EVEREST report calls the election software “fragile.”
Why would these machines be so enticing as a target? You could swing an
entire election, produce incorrect results, block groups of voters, cast doubt on an election or delay results. And it may not take a brain surgeon to alter these systems. The EVEREST teams reported that they were able to subvert every voting system and not be detected “within a few weeks.” Meanwhile, the EVEREST teams found the issues with only limited access since vendors weren’t exactly cooperative (Section 2.4 of the PDF has the details). The researchers say: Any argument that suggests that the attacker will somehow be less capable or
knowledgeable than the reviewer teams, or that they will not be able to reverse engineer the systems to expose security flaws is not grounded in fact. As for the attackers, EVEREST ranks the following folks in ascending order of capabilities: - Outsiders have no special access to voting equipment, but could affect equipment to an extent that it is connected to the Internet. All of the systems reviewed run Microsoft Windows and occasionally connect to the Internet. In addition, an attacker could create a counterfeit upgrade disk and mail it to install malware.
- Voters have limited and partially supervised access to voting systems while casting a vote.
- Poll workers have extensive access to polling place equipment, management terminals before, during and after voting. They can authorize who votes and who doesn’t and opportunities to tamper with equipment abound.
- Election officials have extensive access to back-end election systems and voting equipment. Access is only loosely supervised if at all. One possibility: Bad software prompts election officials to “correct” results.
- Vendor employees have access to the hardware and source code of system during development. Employees may also be on site to assist workers and election officials. “Some vendors use third-party maintenance and election day support whose employees are not tightly regulated,” according to EVEREST.
Add it up and any hack the vote opportunities will most likely be an inside job of some sort. The attacks may or may not be detectable.
|
工具 
